Archive for November 2013

Danish Technological Institute (DTI) develops, applies and transfers robot technology to the industry and society. Our focus is innovation - applying new research results and robot technologies to create the robot solutions in the markets of tomorrow. DTI is a leading European robotics-innovator with a staff of more than 60 robotic experts, well-equipped labs in Denmark and USA with more than 16.000 users every year as well as more than 125 robotic projects in the portfolio.

Focus is always on creating positive impact for end-users of robotic technologies as well as being the first mover on developing and deploying new breakthrough solutions into the market. Our motto is:
"Robotic-innovations that change your world!"

Robot technology is a growth driver with exponential progression and is therefore of high relevance to a broad range of branches and application domains. DTI is committed to create positive impact in as many branches as possible where some of the most dominant are:

Robotic Solutions
End-user centered design and set up of business cases, development of robotic systems as well as competences and organizational capabilities at end-user sites, deployment of robotic solutions
Test & Documentation
Performance measures on robotic systems in end-user realistic lab set ups or in real end-user environments as well as documentation and dissemination of test results to specific segments
Training & Education
Tools, methods and theories transferred to end-users, system integrators, technology specialists, key stakeholders in robotic industries and users hereof with a focus on practical built up of skills
Analysis & Consultancy
Identify robotics application potentials in current practices, resolve and troubleshot malfunctioning robotic solutions, comparative studies on technologies and application specifics, counseling
Networking & Events
Workshops, conferences, exhibitions, study tours, awards and statistics centered around robotics in different branches with a focus on personal relations, initiation of collaborations, know-how
Advanced Pilot Production
Development and manufacturing of robotic solutions or components with advanced high-tech features, establishment of advanced robot-based manufacturing of advanced products
Research, Development & Innovation Programs
Breakthrough innovations based on strategic and advanced product design, consortia establishment, iterative cycle-based work plans, budgets, fundraising, proposal writing, contracting
Expertise in technological domains covers at least:

Modelling, simulation and programming of (robot)motions
Mechanics, electronics and construction
Sensors, signal processing and sensor fusion
Modern Artificial Intelligence
Human-Robot Interaction
DTI is a networking organization that teams up with companies, public organizations, research institutes, branch representatives and other key stakeholders in order to join forces and maximize the positive robotics impact on end-users. More than 2.500 collaborating partners from Denmark and globally are included in the network.

The DTI robot technology activities are organized at the Centre for Robot Technology in Odense, Denmark, and at DTI Robotics US, Inc. in Atlanta, USA.

Boyevaya Mashina Podderzhki Tankov-72 (BMPT-72), also known as Terminator 2, is a new version of the BMPT tank support combat vehicle developed by UralVagonZavod Corporation, Russia.
The BMPT-72 was launched at the Russian Arms Expo (RAE) exhibition in Nizhny Tagil, Russia, in September 2013.
The new vehicle, fitted with guided weapon system, is capable of destroying infantry vehicles, enemy tanks and other armoured objects.
BMPT-72 design

"The BMPT-72 was launched at the Russian Arms Expo (RAE) exhibition in Nizhny Tagil, Russia, in September 2013."
The multipurpose tank support combat vehicle BMPT-72 is built on the chassis of T-72 battle tank.
The BMPT-72 can survive in different climatic zones, including urban areas, and in any light conditions.
The new variant follows the earlier BMPT tank support combat vehicle developed by Uralvagonzavod and Ural Transport Machine Building Design Bureau.
The crew size of the BMPT-72 has been reduced to three, by removing two grenade launching positions aboard the BMPT. The driver sits in the centre of the forward hull, while the gunner and commander positions are at the rear.
The new vehicle offers improved gun power, protection and command and control system over the BMPT. The combat weight is also reduced from 47t to 44t. The length and width of the vehicle are 7.2m and 3.59m respectively.
Armament of the tank support combat vehicle

The BMPT-72 infantry fire support vehicle is armed with two 30mm 2A42 automatic cannons that can load ammunition of 850 rounds, four laser-guided Ataka-T anti-tank missile systems and one PKTM coaxial machine gun with remote reloading mechanism.
BMPT-72 observation and fire control

The tank features sighting and thermal channels, a laser range finder, integrated laser control channel for missile guidance and independent stabilisation of field of vision in azimuth and elevation planes, to enable the multispectral gunner's sight.
"The multipurpose tank support combat vehicle BMPT-72 is built on the chassis of T-72 battle tank."
The commander is provided with panoramic sight and the gunner's position is fitted with day periscopes. The sighting channel allows the gunner and commander to detect targets at 5,000m distance during day time.
The BMPT-72 is provided with an increased fire control system for terrain observation and target location in all weather and any light conditions.
The vehicle is equipped with a ballistic computer with a set of weather and topographical sending units.
The vehicle also includes a two-axis stabilised weapon unit with electromechanical traversing and elevating drives.
Protection features of Russia's 'Terminator 2'

The BMPT-72 includes steel armoured hull and turret. The protection is further enhanced with the addition of multipurpose and modular explosive reactive armour (ERA) on the forward and sides of the vehicle.
The rear hull is attached with grilled shields for protection against rocket-propelled grenades.
Six smoke grenade launchers installed either side of the turret can create a smoke screen, to conceal the vehicle from hostile forces. The vehicle is also equipped with a collective NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) protection system.
BMPT-72 engine details

The combat vehicle's propulsion system includes either a V-84MS, four-stroke 12-cylinder multifuel diesel engine with liquid cooling and gear-driven centrifugal-type supercharger, or a V-92S2 four-stroke 12-cylinder multifuel diesel with liquid cooling and turbocharger.
The V-84MS engine generates 840hp power and the V-92S2 is rated at 1,000hp.
The mechanical power train of the BMPT-72 consists of a transmission gear unit, two final gear boxes and coaxial final drives.
The transmission is provided by seven forward gears and a reverse gear.
The vehicle is fitted with a DGU 5-P27.5-VM1or DGU8-P27.5-VM-1 diesel-generator unit producing 5kW or 8kW of electric power. The generator is placed in the armoured compartment on left plate above the track.
Mobility of the BMPT-72 tank support combat vehicle

The vehicle is equipped with torsion bar suspension system on each side, including six road wheels with idler at forward and drive sprocket at rear.
The inside of the track is stabilised by three return rollers.
The BMPT-72 has a maximum road speed of 60km/h and can reach a maximum distance of 500km with external fuel tanks.
The vehicle is capable of crossing a trench of 2.8m.

Outside U.S District Court in San Jose, Calif., where Apple and Samsung are battling over damages in a retrial.

(Credit: Michelle Meyers/CNET)

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- A Samsung expert on Friday made his case for why the Korean giant should pay Apple only $52 million in damages, saying there's no evidence that anyone has bought Samsung devices because of a particular patented Apple technology.

An expert hired by Apple had determined the company was due $114 million in lost profits because of Samsung's use of technology under Apple's patent No. 7,844,915, also known as "pinch to zoom." The '915 patent covers technology that can distinguish whether a user is scrolling with one finger versus using several touch points at once for a pinch-to-zoom action.

However, Michael Wagner, an accountant and lawyer hired by Samsung, said there's no evidence from either company that shows consumers bought Samsung devices because they liked that particular touch-screen feature. As a result, he believes Apple should receive no money for lost profits.

"I believe people bought these phones for other features," Wagner said. That includes bigger, AMOLED screens; faster processors; and 4G LTE.

The comments come on the fourth day of a retrial for damages that Samsung owes Apple for infringing on five of its patents. A judge in March vacated about $450 million of an original award. Samsung is still on the hook for $600 million, no matter what happens in the retrial.

Wagner spent his time on the stand Friday disputing calculations made by Apple's expert accountant, Julie Davis. In particular, he said that she didn't correctly determine Samsung's profits from the infringing devices and she attached too much value to Apple's lost profits stemming from Samsung's use of a touch-screen technology patent.

The two companies are battling over how much more Samsung owes Apple for infringing on five of its patents. Apple -- using Davis' calculations -- says Samsung owes it $380 million. Samsung says it should pay $52 million.

A big part of the discrepancy comes from differing views on how much Apple lost in profits and how much it should be due for royalties.

One expert, MIT professor John Hauser, estimated three Apple patents, including the '915 patent, adds about $100 in value to a $199 smartphone or $90 in value to a $499 tablet. Davis said Apple lost out on $114 million in profits because of the Samsung copycat devices. She also calculated Samsung's profits to be $231 million, and said reasonable royalties owed to Apple total $35 million. Apple estimates it would have sold 360,000 devices if Samsung hadn't released infringing rivals.

Samsung, meanwhile, said Apple shouldn't receive any money for lost profits, $52.7 million for Samsung's profits, and royalties of only $28,452 because the patents have limitations.

Wagner on Friday said Davis should have deducted operating expenses for marketing, R&D, and other items from her calculation of Samsung's profit from the infringing devices.

"Davis calculated not a penny of these operating expenses, which I believe are a necessary expense," Wagner said. "You can't sell a phone without incurring those types of costs."

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- A federal district court judge on Tuesday asked Apple and Samsung to hold talks one more time before a new patent infringement trial is scheduled to kick off in March.

Judge Lucy Koh, speaking before jury selection in a retrial of a separate suit Apple filed against Samsung, told attorneys for the companies that she would like them to try to reach a settlement and that she would prefer the companies' CEOs participate in the talks.

"I ask that before March, there be one last, or additional, attempt to see if you can resolve these cases," she said.

Apple v. Samsung redux: What you need to know (FAQ)

She prefaced the request by saying to the attorneys for Apple and Samsung that "you don't have to laugh at me, but even my chambers laughs at me when I mention settlement."

The parties agreed they will have a proposal for talks by January 8. Koh noted she was disappointed it will take that long but agreed to the date. Cross-summary motions for the March trial still will take place December 12, she said. In that case, Apple claims Samsung's Galaxy Nexus and other devices infringe on four of its patents.

"If you will resolve it, we would like it to be sooner rather than later," Koh said.

Koh made the comments at a retrial related to damaged owed to Apple by Samsung. The trial kicked off Tuesday in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose. It's slated to last about six days before the case is turned over to the jury for deliberation.

Jury selection lasted the entire session Tuesday and kept everyone in the court an hour later than scheduled. Ultimately, eight people -- two men and six women -- were selected.

Opening statements will take place Wednesday.

Apple originally filed suit against Samsung in April of 2011, accusing the Korean company of copying the look and feel of its products. Samsung countersued two months later over patent infringement and said it was at work on touch-screen phones with giant rectangular screens and rounded corners well before Apple showed up The initial trial, which stretched more than three weeks in August of 2012, wrapped both of those cases in one, somehow squeezing together the patent infringement issues, alongside antitrust claims, and even trade dress issues.

In August of last year, a nine-person jury sided with Apple on a majority of its patent infringement claims against Samsung. At that time, the jury awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages, much less than the $2.75 billion sought by the Cupertino, Calif., electronics giant. Samsung, which asked for $421 million in its countersuit, didn't get anything.

However, Judge Lucy Koh in March ordered a new trial to recalculate some of the damages in the case, striking $450.5 million off the original judgment against Samsung. What that means is Samsung is still on the hook for about $600 million in damages, but a new jury has to decide how much else it owes.

The products in question include the Galaxy Prevail, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Galaxy SII AT&T, Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Tab, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform. The Prevail in particular racked up $57.9 million of the damages tally, which Koh said was a failure on the jury's part, since the device was found to infringe only on utility patents, and not on design patents.

Apple's Phil Schiller talking about the iPhone 5S' M7 coprocessor during an event in September.

(Credit: Josh Lowensohn/CNET)

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Apple's head of marketing, Phil Schiller, on Thursday told a court here that the iPhone was a "bet the company product," and that now the entire company works on it in some way.

Schiller took the stand in a damages retrial against Samsung with only 11 minutes left in the session. That gave him just enough time to introduce himself and talk briefly about his role at Apple, the development of the iPhone, and the event introducing the product.

"There were huge risks [with the first iPhone]," he said. "We had a saying inside the company that it was a 'bet the company' product...We were starting to do well again in iPod...Then here we're going to invest all these resources, financial as well as people, in creating this product."

Apple v. Samsung redux: What you need to know (FAQ)

He noted that Apple started working on the iPhone after it had already started iPad development. In the beginning, about 100 people worked on the smartphone. Now, "almost everyone" at Apple works on the device.

The comments came on the third day of a retrial for damages that Samsung owes Apple for infringing on five of its patents through 13 of its devices.

Court kicked off Tuesday with jury selection in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The trial is slated to last about six days before the case is turned over to the jury -- composed of six women and two men -- for deliberation.

Wednesday involved opening arguments where Apple asked for an additional $380 million in damages, and Samsung said it only needs to pay $52 million. Apple witnesses who have taken the stand in the case include a couple of experts on touch-screen technology, an Apple executive in charge of components and materials procurement, and a few Samsung executives via deposition videos.

The bulk of the session Thursday included questioning of Julie Davis, an expert accountant hired by Apple to determine just how much Samsung owes the company for infringing on its patents. She testified that Apple lost sales due to Samsung's infringing devices. But even if the jury decides Apple didn't lose a single sale because of Samsung infringement, damages should be $287 million, Davis said.

John Hauser, an MIT professor of marketing, performed analysis on Apple's behalf to determine what value its patents add to a smartphone. He said during testimony that in a $199 smartphone, consumers would pay $100 more for features covered by three Apple patents. That includes the bounce-back effect for scrolling to the bottom of a browser page, as well as other touch-screen features.

Much of the difference between Samsung and Apple's damages calculations comes from how much Apple should receive for royalties and what profit Samsung generated from the infringing devices. Both companies agree on the number of devices sold as well as the revenue Samsung generated. However, Samsung said it made a lower profit than Apple believes because of costs such as marketing.

Apple arrived at the $380 million amount based on lost profits of about $114 million, Samsung's profits of about $231 million, and reasonable royalties of approximately $35 million. Apple estimates it would have sold 360,000 devices if Samsung hadn't released infringing rivals.

Samsung, meanwhile, said Apple shouldn't receive any money for lost profits, $52.7 million for Samsung's profits, and royalties of only $28,452 because the patents have limitations.

Judge Lucy Koh on Tuesday asked Apple and Samsung to again hold settlement talks before another trial slated for March. The parties agreed to submit a proposal by January 8.

Apple originally filed suit against Samsung in April of 2011, accusing the Korean company of copying the look and feel of its products. Samsung countersued two months later over patent infringement and said it was at work on touch-screen phones with giant rectangular screens and rounded corners well before Apple showed up. The initial trial, which stretched more than three weeks in August of 2012, wrapped both of those cases in one, somehow squeezing together the patent infringement issues, alongside antitrust claims, and even trade dress issues.

In August of last year, a nine-person jury sided with Apple on a majority of its patent infringement claims against Samsung. At that time, the jury awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages, much less than the $2.75 billion sought by the Cupertino, Calif., electronics giant. Samsung, which asked for $421 million in its countersuit, didn't get anything.

However, Koh in March ordered a new trial to recalculate some of the damages in the case, striking $450.5 million off the original judgment against Samsung. What that means is Samsung is still on the hook for about $600 million in damages, but a new jury has to decide how much else it owes.

The products in question include the Galaxy Prevail, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Galaxy SII AT&T, Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Tab, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform. The Prevail in particular racked up $57.9 million of the damages tally, which Koh said was a failure on the jury's part, since the device was found to infringe only on utility patents, and not on design patents.

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Samsung on Tuesday argued that Apple deserves a low amount of additional damages for patent infringement because Apple's patents are "very narrow" and people buy Samsung's devices for their differences from the iPhone.
Samsung attorney Bill Price said Apple has tried to show its patents cover all aspects of design and ease of use, preventing companies from making "attractive" devices that are easy to use. However, the patents are limited, he argued, which is why Samsung should only pay Apple $52 million for patent infringement, not the $380 million Apple has requested.
"Apple has tried to mischaracterize these patents so they are the iPhone," Price said during closing arguments in a court here. But "these patents are very narrow...Apple doesn't own beautiful and sexy."
He added that while Samsung knew it needed to alter its devices to compete with the iPhone, Apple has done the same thing with new devices like the iPad Mini.
"There's nothing wrong with looking at your competitors and changing what you do because of it," Price said

Apple has applied for five new patents, all related to Liquidmetal technology.
The US Patent and Trademark Office on Thursday published five patent applications Apple has filed on the process by which it would use Liquidmetal to build next-generation products. The patents are heavily technical, discussing the process for incorporating the technology into devices, but indicate that the company is at least thinking about incorporating Liquidmetal into several products, including smartphones, tablets, and digital displays.

Patently Apple reported on the applications earlier Thursday.
Interestingly, Apple's patent applications also tie in 3D printing and how the technology could be used to build certain devices with Liquidmetal.
Liquidmetal has been rumored to be coming to Apple devices for years. The technology is a special "metallic glass" that aims at becoming commonplace in next-generation products. That refrain has been heard for years, though, which means that speculation of Liquidmetal coming to Apple products should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.